This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Here is a redraft including my personal responses to Pfain's work and the comments above. I note that this is the crux of a very difficult issue and we will need to take more than usual care to achieve both a truly neutral point of view and sufficient conciseness. May I suggest that so far as possible we use the text below and edit it, as boldly as we feel is reasonable, giving clear summaries of our edits? (As opposed to either repeating all the text every time or talking in generalities, either of which will result in a very large amount of text.)
I have tried to incorporate into this the point that the international debate is to a large extent given its structure and vocabulary by the UN's comments, so I'd sugggest that a brief mention of the most important UN statements is worthwhile. I don't feel that in this article we should analyze all of them, though in the Dispute article more of them might be worth remark. In either case it is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia to point out perceived inconsistencies within the UN's various statements. I have cut and pasted a few references, but more are needed, and I haven't tried chasing up the dead links. Anyway, edit away, I hope this helps and even if it doesn't I foresee an interesting debate.
Relations with Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.
Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [1] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Spain opposes such attempts [7] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [8] [9]
Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article>
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc> Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I'd timed out and hadn't noticed)
On the UN resolutions, my position is reasonably clear-cut. I do not accept that the passage of non-binding resolutions discussing the political situation 40-45 years ago implies that said resolutions are directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics - any more than General Franco's position on Gibraltar (for example) is directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics. On the other hand, inclusion inappropriately diverts a section discussing modern politics by pushing us into historical discussion. I do not feel that the use of the referenda to make a point about modern Gibraltar politics diverts the text in this way.
Thus, unless someone can give me a compelling explanation as to how and why the resolutions are directly relevant to the current political situation - and I do not consider the fact that they exist and reference the dispute to be "compelling" - I oppose any text that includes them. Better to have no change than to create a coatrack of Spanish grievances.
As such, my proposed text is and remains what I proposed under the earlier part of this talk page, with the words under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 optionally included after the words "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". As I said before, I feel that 1541 is different from the others, as it defines a UN list that includes Gibraltar today and that consensus accepts is relevant. The only reason to include mention of that list in this section - as opposed to before it - is so that we don't discuss the British and Spanish positions before mentioning the fact of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Territorial dispute is indeed much better - I've changed the title of my draft above. I hope it's clear to all that this is not a coatrack; this is an attempt to summarize very briefly, with appropriate conceptual grouping and in approximate chronological order, the arguments still used by both sides. I'd suggest strongly that including 1514 is important - there is an important contradiction (or not depending on which side you're coming from) in a request for self-determination expressed as opposition to a referendum. The ICJ may also be relevant - again, could someone well-informed do a draft? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather meh about going ino the detail of every UN General Assembly ruling, as they have as much authority as a Women's Institute Bake Sale. I'm fine with the current title. It is Spain that uses avenues like the UN etc, it is part of that situation. -- Narson ~ Talk • 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A general response to the above, if I may:
I prefer the current title "relations with Spain", as it allows the text to cover a broader range of issues to be added at a later date. I also feel that it is more appropriate in the context that we are writing - this is the section discussing modern politics, and some aspects of the dispute are not relevant - and that the title "territorial dispute" is not strictly accurate because Spain only disputes the extent, not the fact, of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. That said, I am willing to compromise on this.
It may be worth clarifying my position on the resolutions. In my comment above, I'm specifically referring to UN General Assembly resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353. These resolutions specifically addressed the political situation in 1965, 1966 and 1968 respectively and have no bearing on modern politics. While I do not consider them vital, I do not feel that a reference to 1514 (setting out the General Assembly's support for decolonisation in general terms) and 1541 (setting out the formal criteria for inclusion in the C24 list) fall into the same category. They have significance to the current discussions on the subject, and I would be willing to include them if an appropriate form of words can be found to summarise them. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Richard's proposal:
Relations with Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.
Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".
Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541, Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [10] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [11] [3] [12] [13] [14] Spain opposes such attempts [15] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [16] [17]
Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article>
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc>
I suggest altering several paragraphs:
The second should be changed to:
“ | Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> | ” |
To claim that UN resolutions support Spanish claims is simply untrue they don't. I agree to mentioning 2353 if is covered appropriately. But the proposed text fails WP:CHERRY in selectively quoting the resolution.
I suggest the next paragraph is amended as:
“ | Gibraltar was originally included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [18] as it was declared as a colony by the UK in 1947. UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 defines a self-governing territory on the basis of (a) emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State. The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised under the provisions of Free association with an independent State. [19] [3] [20] [21] [22] Spain opposes such attempts [23] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony [24] [25], although such references are considered offensive in Gibraltar. | ” |
Note that I have included the Spanish practise of referring to Gibraltar as a colony, however, to be neutral I think it is worth commenting this is considered offensive in Gibraltar itself. Justin talk 21:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, I've seen nothing so far that would lead me to deviate significantly from my original proposal. A suitable variation may be:
Appropriate title
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity. In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the Treaty of Utrecht, which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave. The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly oppose any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example. The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty, and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541. While the British and Gibraltar governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised, Spain opposes such attempts, and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
This gets rid of the referenda entirely, making the point intended explicitly rather than by implication. The detail of 1541 should properly be explained in the article United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, not here, and I mention no other resolution. This is a more appropriate indication of the UN's actual relevance to the Gibraltar dispute - though it still overstates it IMO. I must admit, I'm not convinced even that the C24 list is really relevant - but I'm willing to accept a mention as standing consensus. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Territorial claim by Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article> In referenda in 1967and 2002, Gibraltarians overwhelmingly opposed any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas which all parties agree were ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example. The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc>
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [26], defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [27] [3] [28] [29] [30] Spain opposes such attempts [31] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [32] [33]
Comments?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
About the UN's POV: I think I have made a case for myself (I just don't wanted to bore anybody repeating it again). To sum it up, my case is that the UN's POV is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an overview article about a territorial dispute. I know that some other editors think that the UN's POV is not noteworthy enough to be in this overview article. Therefore, I think we should find a way to reach an agreement (mediation, RfC, some noticeboard, ...) I propose that we agree on a short and neutral explanation of this dispute and then ask for outside opinion (with compromise from all "inside editors" to not make any comment so as to not scare outside editors away). What do you think?
About the isthmus and territorial waters:
“ | Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock. On the other hand, Britain claims its sovereignty on half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar. While Spain asserts that British sovereignty should apply only within the limits expressly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht, the UK argues that continuous possession of the isthmus and the more modern concept of territorial waters should also be taken into account." | ” |
Do you think this is neutral enough? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | The Spanish view of the Treaty of Utrecht accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock. Britain claims sovereignty on half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus and the more modern concept of territorial waters should also be taken into account." | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Again see User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar for the corresponding redraft and to avoid excessive text. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock described in the Treaty of Utrecht. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar." | ” |
“ | Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk's text rather neatly avoided falling into any particular trap of making judgement on claims, what Imalbornoz and you propose does not. I continue to support Pfainuk's last draft, a perfectly acceptable draft that is being rejected for no particularly good reason to push prose that is partisan. Richard, if you do not understand the difference between claim and title may I suggest you visit the library to do some research. May I suggest the American writer Lowell Gustafson as an expert in International Law regarding sovereignty.
Peter Caruana recently challenged Spain to test its claim in the International Court of Justice, Spain as it has previously has refused. This is worthy of inclusion.
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [34]. | ” |
The text is written neutrally and does not fall into a trap of recognising any particular claim as yours does, it also neatly avoids saying what is claim and what is title. Justin talk 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, and claims that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Nope, again its text that is making judgement on merits of claims. Note that my suggestion does not, neither does Pfainuk's. You appear to lack the ability to put personal bias to one side. I also think the verifiable fact that there has been a request to refer the fact to the ICJ should be mentioned. It seems incongruous that someone who has argued so often for mention of UN bodies would repeatedly ignore that suggestion. Justin talk 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we have alternative texts, the first Pfainuk's initial draft as above:
"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."
Or:
"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. [35] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should also be taken into account and the more modern concept of territorial waters is applicable. [36]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [37]
Both strike me as good and I don't see any very important difference between them, though the second makes positive comments which are slightly closer to what the references say. Also, it seems that interpretation of the T of U is not the main difference between the two sides. Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits. [38] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. [39]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [40]
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [41] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar. [42]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [43]
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [44] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [45]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [46] [47]
OK, massed response again.
Imalbornoz's claim that Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock of Gibraltar is not backed up by his source, which states that Spain accepts British sovereignty over "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts belonging to them" (almost a direct quote of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht). Pretty plainly, this includes areas that are not "within the limits of the Rock" - not least the port.
The other issue is, as Justin points out, the distinction between making a claim and holding de facto control. The distinction being that the first rather implies that there is no control, whereas in this case there is.
Based on these two points I oppose Imalbornoz's current proposal.
Editors should, incidentally, be aware that this has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Imalbornoz, in the future, if you're worried about people objecting, I suggest you wait more than ten minutes to see if there's an objection. Pfainuk talk 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [48]. | ” |
Gibraltar has de facto control of its waters, they're patroled and enforced by Gibraltar authorities. Spanish incursions do not change that, Spanish officers have been arrested and interned for doing so. Proposal on the table is:
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [49]. | ” |
What is wrong with it, this is appropriate coverage for an overview and you quibbling but point blank to refuse to identify what is the problem. Justin talk 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I disagree it is easy to fix, if that really is the issue,
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [50]. | ” |
It is actually more compact as well. Does this meet with your approval? Justin talk 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Going by parts in response to Imalbornoz:
First point, if you look at my original text, I stated it in almost those exact terms. My original text read:
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Richard objected on the basis that it was not sufficiently clear what was explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht - doubtless having noticed lines such as "to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever". This is where the matter of interpretation came in. I do not feel that "the Rock and the port" is accurate in fact or in implication, given as the Rock is not mentioned by Spain.
Second point, you miss my point entirely. We could add airspace. We could remove territorial waters. We could remove the isthmus. It is useful to give an example, but it makes no difference which one it is. And there is no good reason to use the example to divert ourselves into vast quantities of detail that would be far better left to more detailed articles.
Third point has already been answered by Justin.
I note that once again your refusal to discuss the UNGA resolutions, that you assert (without argument) have to go in. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but also I had in mind the sadly indefinite definition of "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". Does there exist anywhere a reasonably concise definition of what exactly is agreed by all parties to be covered by this? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is not going anywhere. We bring up things in an disorderly manner, we clutter RfCs and noticeboards with our own comments, we have tried informal mediation at least three times (without any success)... I propose that we ask for formal mediation. If you want, we can start with the controversy about the territorial limits of Gibraltar. Would you agree to accept formal mediation? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems you are coming to a conclusion on these issues. It's nice to see people working together to achieve a good result. I apologize for my absence here (family illnesses and a death) but I am pleased to see the work. Thanks for the reordering things Richard, I think that was the necessary move. JodyB talk 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We now have five alternative texts. I have put them in my preferred order with a couple of comments:
1.
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock and its port, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [51] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [52]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [53] [54]
This seems to make all the important points and is still commendably brief. If it's confirmed that the UK government does not entirely agree with the Spanish government on the exact territory covered by the T of U, this would be my preferred text.
2.
"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. [55] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should be taken into account and the modern concept of territorial waters is applicable. [56]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [57]
This leaves out the T of U entirely, which may be appropriate if in fact the governments do entirely agree on the exact territory covered by the Treaty.
3.
"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."
This may not give enough detail for our target audience, a new reader who doesn't have any background on the dispute. It also assumes that the interpretation of the Treaty does in fact differ importantly between the two sides, which we've yet to confirm or reject with appropriate references. But it still strikes me as acceptable.
4.
Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [58].
This is basically 3. with the addition of a debating point. A perfectly good one, but suitable only for the overview article. If we are to document the entire wrangle we could include an awful lot more before we get to this point. We do need to know: does the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht about the land ceded differ importantly between the two sides? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the ICJ without a response | ” |
.
Would that be support for option 4, then? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
5.
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law [59].
Point 1: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. This strongly implies that the Rock and the port are a list of bits that Spain recognises. It isn't. Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.
Point 2: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. Spain recognises British sovereignty beyond the Rock: specifically, Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.
Point 3: I support. It gives a proper amount of detail and accurately represents Spain's position, giving examples. If readers want more detail then they are perfectly welcome to visit the two full articles that we have on the subject of the dispute. I'm willing to discuss the first sentence if necessary, but it must be accurate. Neither point 1 or point 2 is accurate.
Point 4: I find it amusing that you say that this point is too much detail, but a rather longer and more drawn out discussion of the territorial waters dispute is "commendably brief". As it happens, I do agree with you that it's a detail too far. But I don't accept that you can consistently say that this one is too much detail without also accepting that options 1 and 2 are also too much detail.
Point 5: "Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV". It's not a matter of thinking it's biased. It does not require much thought to realise that a text that says that the poor, innocent EU and Spain are being persecuted through the courts by the evil British is pretty clearly biased. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
1 and 2 are innacurate I would oppose those as an option. 3 I could support, 4 I support. My personal preference only for its brevity and the avoidance of any dispute about Utrecht is my proposal:
6.
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the ICJ without a response | ” |
.
5. is biased and the author has deliberately been so to create a strawman to rubbish other options. This is decidedly pointy behaviour, not helpful, yet another example Richard of disruptive behaviour that you do not confront and indeed appear to encourage.
Pfainuk you know that I respect your opinion, could you perhaps elucidate why you think the mention of the ICJ is a point too far. The case I would put forward for mentioning it is that the ICJ is the only body that is capable of delivering a binding legal judgement that would settle the dispute once and for all. Do you not think it worthy of mention that one party is prepared to put its case to the test, whereas the other let us say prefers not to. Is that not significant? Justin talk 20:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
5bis.
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock.
1 bis.
Spain claims that British sovereignty is only acceptable in the areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht [60] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [61]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [62] [63]
“ | Britain disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Here's another draft (omitting references for the moment), using Pfainuk's excellent headings which I repeat first, and everyone else's ideas:
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is agreed to be British, but Spain requests its return, citing its territorial integrity. Additionally, Spain's position is that the Treaty of Utrecht does not give Britain sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, or over any territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over all the territory of modern Gibraltar. It supports Gibraltarian self-determination, subject to the stipulation of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which, if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar, they must first be offered to the crown of Spain. The Gibraltarian government argues that Gibraltarian self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the British and Gibraltarian governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. |
” |
A bit longer than ideal, but still worth including if it, or some variant, can bring consensus. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, try this:
“ | The sovereignty of the Rock and the port are agreed to be British, but Spain requests their return, citing its territorial integrity. Additionally, Spain's position is that the Treaty of Utrecht does not give Britain sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, nor certain other rights including territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over the southern part of the isthmus as well as the Rock, with all attached rights. It supports Gibraltar's self-determination, subject to the stipulation of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which, if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar, they must first be offered to the crown of Spain. The Gibraltar government argues that Gibraltar self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar has been on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar to its sovereignty, citing Spanish territorial integrity, while agreeing that the Rock and the port are at present British. Additionally, Spain's position is that under the Treaty of Utrecht Britain does not have sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, nor certain other rights including territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over the southern part of the isthmus as well as the Rock, with all attached rights, deriving both from the Treaty of Utrecht and from long-continued possession. It supports Gibraltar's self-determination, subject to the Treaty of Utrecht, which states that if Britain chooses to leave Gibraltar the territory must be offered to Spain. The Gibraltar government argues that Gibraltar's self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar has been on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states." which seems clearly pointy, POV, and verbose, making far fewer points than our present proposal in over half the amount of space. And I too would be prepared to include the UK's role in putting Gibraltar on the UN list if this would bring agreement by all editors, but I really don't see it as required for this overview. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a wording of mine:
Significant points:
Sadly we may need to proceed with a consensus that doesn't include Justin. We await further comment, but for the moment the proposal is to remove the present comments:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
And replace with:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.
Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
As you'll see, these are almost exactly the same length, and the second seems very clearly better on all criteria relevant to an encyclopedia. I propose to make a bold edit soon, unless anyone can come up with any relevant comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I suppose there is a possible ambiguity. What about
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Alternative texts would be welcome, of course, and if they're shorter and still fulfil all other criteria for a major issue in Gibraltar's current politics, that would be great. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pfainuk for constructive comments. I see your point and no, I wasn't trying to rewrite reality. What about this version?
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet again the mention of San Roque as the main destination (with current implications for at least one national narrative) of the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been removed. So has the main reason for the evacuation, namely fear after riotous invasion and atrocities committed under guarantees of safety. A passing allusion and a minor speculation replaces this. I appreciate that these facts do not sit well with the other national narrative, but they are multiply-referenced and have achieved a consensus.
I have therefore reverted from:
"During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave."
to
"On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain,assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."
Those coming new to this issue may wish to check the quotations currently available at
User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Those who wish to reprise the arguments so far may wish to trawl the archives. The specific issue here is a major theme from October 2009.
Justin, you suggest administrative involvement as the best course to solve this issue. I find it quite refreshing to agree with you. It's very nearly a year since I joined this discussion, responding to one of the requests for comments. I came in at Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16, and from well before then the archives record acrimonious and ultimately vain attempts to include you in the consensus. As I have previously argued, I do not feel that you have sufficient competence to contribute usefully to this page. We have had many months of filibustering and disruption, with good editors and wellmeaning mediators being driven away and those who stay the course wasting huge amounts of time. Short of decisive intervention, I see no reason to anticipate improvement. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I agree that at this point WP:AE would seem to be required in order to make any progress on your issues on this page. Do you want to make the request for help, or leave it for someone else? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A request regarding Wee Curry Monster has been filled by me here. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have full protected the article for 2 weeks. Sort out what sorts of information you agree to include and what presentation. Keep in mind that you should stick to the sources and cite reputable references. If sources conflict, reflect that in the text. If you need some help sorting out content issues, get some help. Other matters are being sorted out in the enforcement thread linked above. All editors of this page are notified that this article and related topics are subject to discretionary sanctions. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. Cool it down and sort it out. Vassyana ( talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
We have been working on Pfainuk's suggestion, which seemed to attain widespread support:
This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:
Attempts to put this into grammatical English, with one point added at Justin's insistence, have so far led us to:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a prov,ision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
This would replace the present text:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
We have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:
Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
This is clearly unsatisfactory, as can be seen from its mirror image from the other side of the dispute:
The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights.
Both prejudge the relevant claims.
We are not in a hurry, but this change has now received a lot of attention. It's about time to make the edit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Repeat the same position, thats always a good consensus building ploy.
Why mention Utrecht at all? A 300 year old treaty? The dispute is over the isthmus and territorial waters, thats pretty much all that needs mentioning. Everything else is details that go into the Dispute article. A few sentences at most is needed. Justin talk 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess that we have a consensus minus Justin. Unless this changes in the next day or so I plan to remove the present text:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
And replace it with:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we're at or even particularly close to the point where leaving people out of the consensus-building process is appropriate. Justin is entitled to make points and should not be ignored just because it may be convenient for others. The fact that others disagree with Justin's points does not invalidate them.
Clearly, no editor has a final veto on content, but we should still be looking to include all editors in any given consensus.
My perspective on the point at hand is this:
I have an issue with "present de facto limits" because it doesn't mean anything, and can perfectly easily be substituted with words that do. Like, for example, "existing borders", the wording that I originally proposed and that no-one raised any objection to.
I think that, whereas verbosity is to be avoided, we ought to explain the very basics of the dispute in this section. The fact of the Spanish claim over areas that both sides agree are British territory (the whole self-determination vs. territorial integrity bit) is significant. I rather feel that if we are limiting ourselves to a single sentence, there is not a lot of point in bothering - since that point is already made rather more expansively in the lede. Hence my suggestion that it be a bit longer. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
When is a border not a border?
If there isn't a border, could somone tell me why there are border guards, passport and customs controls on the Spanish side of the ... er border? [19] [20] Note the second from a neutral third party source [21] Google brings up over 2,000,000 hits. Mmmm, to be honest WP:DUCK springs to mind, not calling it a border just seems, well, extraordinarily silly to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
To an outsider watching this page this is all a bit daft you are all going round in circles. The de facto border is the border it is not bias it is a fact of life all you need to say is the although the border is at wherever the Spanish claim that it is in the wrong place. You can all use some fancy phrases but I am afraid the border is physically where it is, all you need to mention is that Spain doesnt agree. MilborneOne ( talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
The other proposal was to use "borders" instead of "de facto limits", which is where this little fracas came from. I'd rather side-step the entire issue and provide a text that is accurate and that nobody will think is biased.
Finally, we also have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:
Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
I am fairly sure that this prejudges a number of issues, such as whether Gibraltar is part of Spain, and it omits the various rationales for the positions. However, it's shorter, we do have specific articles on the disputes, and the issues could be put right. Perhaps:
Spain requests the return of the entire territory, and believes that it has legal sovereignty over the isthmus south of La Linea and over all territorial waters and airspace.
If I could impose so far upon your good-will, I hope that a well-considered external choice at this point may put an end to years of wrangling. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I do apologise, you wouldn't be the first editor to be deterred by this talk page. The current text is:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
Thanks in advance. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. | ” |
The current statement as a continuation of the history section appears to discuss a continuing dispute about territorial waters. Is it the contention that it should also summarise the current disputed situation not just the territorial waters dispute? (simple answers only)
MilborneOne (
talk)
12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We already have a reasonable summary in the lead The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. so I think a more expanded version is needed but only as far as to set the scene. The detail can be in the child-articles, although it seems strange that the History of article stops in the 19th century! I will take the suggested long version, please note I am not bothered which of you suggested what far to confusing:
I think that the shorter texts are not really giving the reader a flavour of the recent history so I would suggest use a version of the above text but take notice of my comments. Note that longer explanations can be delegated to the child articles. Note that I have given an opinion I dont intend to debate my conclusions its up to the regulars on this page to take or ignore them. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that leaves us with something like (possible omissions in italics.):
“ | While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain continues to request that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is full, not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht, otherwise agreeing with Britain. Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation". |
” |
All versions strike me as entirely acceptable. The first possible omission removes the Gibraltarian view, and I'd tend to keep it. The second removes a text on which Justin / Wee Monster has strong feelings, and if it would mean a consensus I'd accept it joyfully.
MilborneOne, many thanks for your help so far. I understand your intention to avoid further debate, but could I ask you to follow this edit, perhaps over the next week at most, until we have achieved a better version? As you may notice, we have got stuck. As an administrator you have relevant powers, and under the recent Arbcom decision on this page these are quite extensive enough to ensure that a sensible decision is in fact reached in that time.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this until Tuesday evening, but - unless there is any disagreement - will then make the edit. I propose to leave out the phrase added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now. However, if anybody wants to keep the phrase, for the sake of consensus, I'd personally be happy to do so. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
Territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting Gibraltar to the mainland is Spanish territory and denies Gibraltar's right to territorial waters and airspace (although legal advice to the Spanish Government indicates that such a denial is illegal under International Law).
The UK although willing to consider such a request, cites the principle of self-determination limited by certain provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar does not accept that the Treaty places any limits upon the right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the provisions of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories but Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain recognizes British sovereignty in Gibraltar, but requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to
self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Spain claims the southern half of the isthmus that links the Rock to the mainland, as well as the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that these were not ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht. Britain argues that its title to the southern part of the isthmus is based on continuous possession since 1815 and that international law supports its claim to the territorial waters and airspace. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting Gibraltar to the mainland is Spanish territory and denies Gibraltar's right to territorial waters and airspace.
The UK although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination limited by certain provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar does not accept that the Treaty places any limits upon the right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the provisions of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories but Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider these requests, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK accepts as still valid - though the Government of Gibraltar does not - a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
It takes the same space - six lines on my edit screen - as Justin / Wee Monster's suggestion.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Under a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht, on withdrawal Britain is obliged to offer the territory to the Crown of Spain first. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. | ” |
“ | The UK accepts as still valid a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, if Britain should withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar does not accept this limit to its right to self-determination. | ” |
would be even better?
“ | The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. | ” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider these requests, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Do we have a consensus? It's only Monday and I still propose to leave the edit until tomorrow evening, unless of course anyone else does it first.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Trying again (and I note with approval that this brings us back again to a close facsimile of Pfainuk's list):
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar under the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus between the Rock and La Linea and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Britain claims the isthmus area on the basis of long possession.
The UK, although willing to consider the request for sovereignty, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Again, do we have a consensus? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider the request for sovereignty, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this provision limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the list; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Again, have we reached a consensus?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said I have a preference for the less verbose text. A slightlu modified version:
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Slight tweaks here and there making it slimmer and less verbose. It doesn't need any qualifiers I believe if you state it like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the list; Spain opposes this. | ” |
is a little clearer for newcomers, because it starts with the fact and only then gives the arguments. So I'd suggest that order - doubtless a better version could be produced. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Close I have one more minor tweak to suggest but wouldn't oppose the above:
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed; Spain opposes this. | ” |
How about that? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized; both the UK and the Gibraltar Governments oppose this. | ” |
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed. | ” |
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed; Spain opposes this. |
” |
With UN resolutions left for child articles and, if appropriate, references, this might be the best outcome? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Before anyone else comments, could I make the suggestion that the last text above is quite a lot better than the text in the article at present, and that it might be reasonable to remove
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
and substitute what we now have, in the Politics section, while leaving open the possibility of improving the new text? I agree that we are doing well here - thanks to all and especially to MilborneOne - and would hope to establish some of the progress actually made. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, with the support of the Government of Spain. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed. |
” |
“ | The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized. | ” |
I'm troubled by this intervention, deeply troubled to be honest given the positive nature of previous discussions. I'm compelled to say it struck a strongly discordant note with me but I will try to put that behind me to explain my opposition.
Spain's position is based on the principle of Territorial integrity claiming that the population is implanted and does not enjoy the right to self-determination under UN resolution 1514 and the UN Charter. As I will show below the resolutions mentioned have nothing to do with decolonisation, rather they're usually cited in regard to the Spanish sovereignty claim. The Spanish position on sovereignty is already covered in the article. So this would be giving prominence to the Spanish position twice. Hence, I don't find this sentence would contribute to a NPOV, rather it would detract from it.
If we look at the resolutions cited in the sentence quoted above, they're clearly not related to the NSG territory list, which is the topic of this paragraph. However, 5 is clearly relevant, 6 is also relevant but as a general principle only and could be suborned to the child article.
Focusing now on 1541, this defines the criteria for a non-self-governing territory, it doesn't favour one side or the other. Of itself its worthy of inclusion as one of the bed rock resolutions of decolonisation and for its relevance to the list we're discussing. I don't think the same can be argued for the other resolutions.
I would hope there is agreement that I've demonstrated the resolutions the above sentence calls up aren't relevant to the topic of this paragraph. Hence, the paragraph suggested following this intervention, removed the one resolution (1541) that is significantly relevant, results in a proposed text that is poorer for it and is diverging from wikipedia's mission of educating our readers on this topic.
I would like to see a minimalist approach but have been prepared to compromise and see more details included than is perhaps necessary for an overview IMHO. I have been prepared to compromise on the Spanish refusal to refer the matter to the ICJ, leaving it to another article. I've been prepared to compromise that the legal advice advice on the Spanish position indicates it is illegal under International Law, leaving it to another article. I can acknowledge those comments as perhaps too detailed for an overview. I don't think this applies to 1541 though. Hence, for me this is just a compromise too far - if we go for more verbose text, inevitably certain details simply have to be covered. I have one final suggestion.
“ | Under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 the UK and Gibraltar argue Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes removal arguing Gibraltar remains a Dependent territory. | ” |
I hope we can finally agree on a consensus text. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. | ” |
A point I would make is that there is a semantic difference - albeit a small one - between the two wordings.
Imalbornoz's wording states that Spain actively supports retaining Gibraltar, including in circumstances where Britain is not discussing the issue. The implication is that Spain would speak in support of inclusion even if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it: that Spain's support is a matter for itself, unrelated to Britain and Gibraltar's arguments for removal.
Curry Monster's wording states that Spain responds to Gibraltar and Britain's arguments. It does not imply anything about what Spain would do if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it, because it is written on the premise that they have.
To my mind, Imalbornoz's wording puts the cart before the horse. It goes into Spain's arguing for the status quo before suggesting that there might be disagreement about this. To my mind, this is the wrong way around. I also don't think that it is necessarily on the right side of the semantic difference: I would speculate (and I fully accept that it would be speculation) that Spain would not put the issue of removal or retention on the table if Britain and Gibraltar had not already done so. So, I think Curry Monster's wording is better. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. | ” |
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. WCM, would you like to start inserting citations, in hopeful anticipatation of genuine consensus? I hope that this process will be uncontroversial. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Maec
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Here is a redraft including my personal responses to Pfain's work and the comments above. I note that this is the crux of a very difficult issue and we will need to take more than usual care to achieve both a truly neutral point of view and sufficient conciseness. May I suggest that so far as possible we use the text below and edit it, as boldly as we feel is reasonable, giving clear summaries of our edits? (As opposed to either repeating all the text every time or talking in generalities, either of which will result in a very large amount of text.)
I have tried to incorporate into this the point that the international debate is to a large extent given its structure and vocabulary by the UN's comments, so I'd sugggest that a brief mention of the most important UN statements is worthwhile. I don't feel that in this article we should analyze all of them, though in the Dispute article more of them might be worth remark. In either case it is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia to point out perceived inconsistencies within the UN's various statements. I have cut and pasted a few references, but more are needed, and I haven't tried chasing up the dead links. Anyway, edit away, I hope this helps and even if it doesn't I foresee an interesting debate.
Relations with Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.
Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [1] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Spain opposes such attempts [7] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [8] [9]
Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article>
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc> Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I'd timed out and hadn't noticed)
On the UN resolutions, my position is reasonably clear-cut. I do not accept that the passage of non-binding resolutions discussing the political situation 40-45 years ago implies that said resolutions are directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics - any more than General Franco's position on Gibraltar (for example) is directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics. On the other hand, inclusion inappropriately diverts a section discussing modern politics by pushing us into historical discussion. I do not feel that the use of the referenda to make a point about modern Gibraltar politics diverts the text in this way.
Thus, unless someone can give me a compelling explanation as to how and why the resolutions are directly relevant to the current political situation - and I do not consider the fact that they exist and reference the dispute to be "compelling" - I oppose any text that includes them. Better to have no change than to create a coatrack of Spanish grievances.
As such, my proposed text is and remains what I proposed under the earlier part of this talk page, with the words under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 optionally included after the words "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". As I said before, I feel that 1541 is different from the others, as it defines a UN list that includes Gibraltar today and that consensus accepts is relevant. The only reason to include mention of that list in this section - as opposed to before it - is so that we don't discuss the British and Spanish positions before mentioning the fact of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Territorial dispute is indeed much better - I've changed the title of my draft above. I hope it's clear to all that this is not a coatrack; this is an attempt to summarize very briefly, with appropriate conceptual grouping and in approximate chronological order, the arguments still used by both sides. I'd suggest strongly that including 1514 is important - there is an important contradiction (or not depending on which side you're coming from) in a request for self-determination expressed as opposition to a referendum. The ICJ may also be relevant - again, could someone well-informed do a draft? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather meh about going ino the detail of every UN General Assembly ruling, as they have as much authority as a Women's Institute Bake Sale. I'm fine with the current title. It is Spain that uses avenues like the UN etc, it is part of that situation. -- Narson ~ Talk • 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A general response to the above, if I may:
I prefer the current title "relations with Spain", as it allows the text to cover a broader range of issues to be added at a later date. I also feel that it is more appropriate in the context that we are writing - this is the section discussing modern politics, and some aspects of the dispute are not relevant - and that the title "territorial dispute" is not strictly accurate because Spain only disputes the extent, not the fact, of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. That said, I am willing to compromise on this.
It may be worth clarifying my position on the resolutions. In my comment above, I'm specifically referring to UN General Assembly resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353. These resolutions specifically addressed the political situation in 1965, 1966 and 1968 respectively and have no bearing on modern politics. While I do not consider them vital, I do not feel that a reference to 1514 (setting out the General Assembly's support for decolonisation in general terms) and 1541 (setting out the formal criteria for inclusion in the C24 list) fall into the same category. They have significance to the current discussions on the subject, and I would be willing to include them if an appropriate form of words can be found to summarise them. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Richard's proposal:
Relations with Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.
Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".
Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541, Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [10] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [11] [3] [12] [13] [14] Spain opposes such attempts [15] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [16] [17]
Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article>
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc>
I suggest altering several paragraphs:
The second should be changed to:
“ | Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> | ” |
To claim that UN resolutions support Spanish claims is simply untrue they don't. I agree to mentioning 2353 if is covered appropriately. But the proposed text fails WP:CHERRY in selectively quoting the resolution.
I suggest the next paragraph is amended as:
“ | Gibraltar was originally included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [18] as it was declared as a colony by the UK in 1947. UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 defines a self-governing territory on the basis of (a) emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State. The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised under the provisions of Free association with an independent State. [19] [3] [20] [21] [22] Spain opposes such attempts [23] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony [24] [25], although such references are considered offensive in Gibraltar. | ” |
Note that I have included the Spanish practise of referring to Gibraltar as a colony, however, to be neutral I think it is worth commenting this is considered offensive in Gibraltar itself. Justin talk 21:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, I've seen nothing so far that would lead me to deviate significantly from my original proposal. A suitable variation may be:
Appropriate title
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity. In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the Treaty of Utrecht, which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave. The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly oppose any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example. The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty, and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541. While the British and Gibraltar governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised, Spain opposes such attempts, and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
This gets rid of the referenda entirely, making the point intended explicitly rather than by implication. The detail of 1541 should properly be explained in the article United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, not here, and I mention no other resolution. This is a more appropriate indication of the UN's actual relevance to the Gibraltar dispute - though it still overstates it IMO. I must admit, I'm not convinced even that the C24 list is really relevant - but I'm willing to accept a mention as standing consensus. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Territorial claim by Spain
Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.< this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.< this Times article> In referenda in 1967and 2002, Gibraltarians overwhelmingly opposed any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas which all parties agree were ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example. The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,< this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.< same FCO doc>
Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. [26], defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. [27] [3] [28] [29] [30] Spain opposes such attempts [31] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. [32] [33]
Comments?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
About the UN's POV: I think I have made a case for myself (I just don't wanted to bore anybody repeating it again). To sum it up, my case is that the UN's POV is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an overview article about a territorial dispute. I know that some other editors think that the UN's POV is not noteworthy enough to be in this overview article. Therefore, I think we should find a way to reach an agreement (mediation, RfC, some noticeboard, ...) I propose that we agree on a short and neutral explanation of this dispute and then ask for outside opinion (with compromise from all "inside editors" to not make any comment so as to not scare outside editors away). What do you think?
About the isthmus and territorial waters:
“ | Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock. On the other hand, Britain claims its sovereignty on half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar. While Spain asserts that British sovereignty should apply only within the limits expressly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht, the UK argues that continuous possession of the isthmus and the more modern concept of territorial waters should also be taken into account." | ” |
Do you think this is neutral enough? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | The Spanish view of the Treaty of Utrecht accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock. Britain claims sovereignty on half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus and the more modern concept of territorial waters should also be taken into account." | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Again see User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar for the corresponding redraft and to avoid excessive text. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock described in the Treaty of Utrecht. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar." | ” |
“ | Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk's text rather neatly avoided falling into any particular trap of making judgement on claims, what Imalbornoz and you propose does not. I continue to support Pfainuk's last draft, a perfectly acceptable draft that is being rejected for no particularly good reason to push prose that is partisan. Richard, if you do not understand the difference between claim and title may I suggest you visit the library to do some research. May I suggest the American writer Lowell Gustafson as an expert in International Law regarding sovereignty.
Peter Caruana recently challenged Spain to test its claim in the International Court of Justice, Spain as it has previously has refused. This is worthy of inclusion.
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [34]. | ” |
The text is written neutrally and does not fall into a trap of recognising any particular claim as yours does, it also neatly avoids saying what is claim and what is title. Justin talk 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, and claims that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Nope, again its text that is making judgement on merits of claims. Note that my suggestion does not, neither does Pfainuk's. You appear to lack the ability to put personal bias to one side. I also think the verifiable fact that there has been a request to refer the fact to the ICJ should be mentioned. It seems incongruous that someone who has argued so often for mention of UN bodies would repeatedly ignore that suggestion. Justin talk 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we have alternative texts, the first Pfainuk's initial draft as above:
"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."
Or:
"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. [35] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should also be taken into account and the more modern concept of territorial waters is applicable. [36]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [37]
Both strike me as good and I don't see any very important difference between them, though the second makes positive comments which are slightly closer to what the references say. Also, it seems that interpretation of the T of U is not the main difference between the two sides. Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits. [38] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar. [39]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [40]
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [41] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar. [42]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [43]
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [44] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [45]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [46] [47]
OK, massed response again.
Imalbornoz's claim that Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock of Gibraltar is not backed up by his source, which states that Spain accepts British sovereignty over "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts belonging to them" (almost a direct quote of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht). Pretty plainly, this includes areas that are not "within the limits of the Rock" - not least the port.
The other issue is, as Justin points out, the distinction between making a claim and holding de facto control. The distinction being that the first rather implies that there is no control, whereas in this case there is.
Based on these two points I oppose Imalbornoz's current proposal.
Editors should, incidentally, be aware that this has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Imalbornoz, in the future, if you're worried about people objecting, I suggest you wait more than ten minutes to see if there's an objection. Pfainuk talk 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [48]. | ” |
Gibraltar has de facto control of its waters, they're patroled and enforced by Gibraltar authorities. Spanish incursions do not change that, Spanish officers have been arrested and interned for doing so. Proposal on the table is:
“ | Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [49]. | ” |
What is wrong with it, this is appropriate coverage for an overview and you quibbling but point blank to refuse to identify what is the problem. Justin talk 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Though I disagree it is easy to fix, if that really is the issue,
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [50]. | ” |
It is actually more compact as well. Does this meet with your approval? Justin talk 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Going by parts in response to Imalbornoz:
First point, if you look at my original text, I stated it in almost those exact terms. My original text read:
Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Richard objected on the basis that it was not sufficiently clear what was explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht - doubtless having noticed lines such as "to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever". This is where the matter of interpretation came in. I do not feel that "the Rock and the port" is accurate in fact or in implication, given as the Rock is not mentioned by Spain.
Second point, you miss my point entirely. We could add airspace. We could remove territorial waters. We could remove the isthmus. It is useful to give an example, but it makes no difference which one it is. And there is no good reason to use the example to divert ourselves into vast quantities of detail that would be far better left to more detailed articles.
Third point has already been answered by Justin.
I note that once again your refusal to discuss the UNGA resolutions, that you assert (without argument) have to go in. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but also I had in mind the sadly indefinite definition of "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". Does there exist anywhere a reasonably concise definition of what exactly is agreed by all parties to be covered by this? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is not going anywhere. We bring up things in an disorderly manner, we clutter RfCs and noticeboards with our own comments, we have tried informal mediation at least three times (without any success)... I propose that we ask for formal mediation. If you want, we can start with the controversy about the territorial limits of Gibraltar. Would you agree to accept formal mediation? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems you are coming to a conclusion on these issues. It's nice to see people working together to achieve a good result. I apologize for my absence here (family illnesses and a death) but I am pleased to see the work. Thanks for the reordering things Richard, I think that was the necessary move. JodyB talk 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We now have five alternative texts. I have put them in my preferred order with a couple of comments:
1.
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock and its port, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [51] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [52]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [53] [54]
This seems to make all the important points and is still commendably brief. If it's confirmed that the UK government does not entirely agree with the Spanish government on the exact territory covered by the T of U, this would be my preferred text.
2.
"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock. [55] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should be taken into account and the modern concept of territorial waters is applicable. [56]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [57]
This leaves out the T of U entirely, which may be appropriate if in fact the governments do entirely agree on the exact territory covered by the Treaty.
3.
"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."
This may not give enough detail for our target audience, a new reader who doesn't have any background on the dispute. It also assumes that the interpretation of the Treaty does in fact differ importantly between the two sides, which we've yet to confirm or reject with appropriate references. But it still strikes me as acceptable.
4.
Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response [58].
This is basically 3. with the addition of a debating point. A perfectly good one, but suitable only for the overview article. If we are to document the entire wrangle we could include an awful lot more before we get to this point. We do need to know: does the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht about the land ceded differ importantly between the two sides? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the ICJ without a response | ” |
.
Would that be support for option 4, then? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
5.
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law [59].
Point 1: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. This strongly implies that the Rock and the port are a list of bits that Spain recognises. It isn't. Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.
Point 2: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. Spain recognises British sovereignty beyond the Rock: specifically, Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.
Point 3: I support. It gives a proper amount of detail and accurately represents Spain's position, giving examples. If readers want more detail then they are perfectly welcome to visit the two full articles that we have on the subject of the dispute. I'm willing to discuss the first sentence if necessary, but it must be accurate. Neither point 1 or point 2 is accurate.
Point 4: I find it amusing that you say that this point is too much detail, but a rather longer and more drawn out discussion of the territorial waters dispute is "commendably brief". As it happens, I do agree with you that it's a detail too far. But I don't accept that you can consistently say that this one is too much detail without also accepting that options 1 and 2 are also too much detail.
Point 5: "Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV". It's not a matter of thinking it's biased. It does not require much thought to realise that a text that says that the poor, innocent EU and Spain are being persecuted through the courts by the evil British is pretty clearly biased. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
1 and 2 are innacurate I would oppose those as an option. 3 I could support, 4 I support. My personal preference only for its brevity and the avoidance of any dispute about Utrecht is my proposal:
6.
“ | Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the ICJ without a response | ” |
.
5. is biased and the author has deliberately been so to create a strawman to rubbish other options. This is decidedly pointy behaviour, not helpful, yet another example Richard of disruptive behaviour that you do not confront and indeed appear to encourage.
Pfainuk you know that I respect your opinion, could you perhaps elucidate why you think the mention of the ICJ is a point too far. The case I would put forward for mentioning it is that the ICJ is the only body that is capable of delivering a binding legal judgement that would settle the dispute once and for all. Do you not think it worthy of mention that one party is prepared to put its case to the test, whereas the other let us say prefers not to. Is that not significant? Justin talk 20:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
5bis.
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock.
1 bis.
Spain claims that British sovereignty is only acceptable in the areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht [60] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [61]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). [62] [63]
“ | Britain disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to the territorial waters around Gibraltar. | ” |
Here's another draft (omitting references for the moment), using Pfainuk's excellent headings which I repeat first, and everyone else's ideas:
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is agreed to be British, but Spain requests its return, citing its territorial integrity. Additionally, Spain's position is that the Treaty of Utrecht does not give Britain sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, or over any territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over all the territory of modern Gibraltar. It supports Gibraltarian self-determination, subject to the stipulation of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which, if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar, they must first be offered to the crown of Spain. The Gibraltarian government argues that Gibraltarian self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the British and Gibraltarian governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. |
” |
A bit longer than ideal, but still worth including if it, or some variant, can bring consensus. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, try this:
“ | The sovereignty of the Rock and the port are agreed to be British, but Spain requests their return, citing its territorial integrity. Additionally, Spain's position is that the Treaty of Utrecht does not give Britain sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, nor certain other rights including territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over the southern part of the isthmus as well as the Rock, with all attached rights. It supports Gibraltar's self-determination, subject to the stipulation of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which, if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar, they must first be offered to the crown of Spain. The Gibraltar government argues that Gibraltar self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar has been on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar to its sovereignty, citing Spanish territorial integrity, while agreeing that the Rock and the port are at present British. Additionally, Spain's position is that under the Treaty of Utrecht Britain does not have sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain, nor certain other rights including territorial waters.
The British Government argues that Britain has full and unrestricted sovereignty over the southern part of the isthmus as well as the Rock, with all attached rights, deriving both from the Treaty of Utrecht and from long-continued possession. It supports Gibraltar's self-determination, subject to the Treaty of Utrecht, which states that if Britain chooses to leave Gibraltar the territory must be offered to Spain. The Gibraltar government argues that Gibraltar's self-determination is not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht or any other consideration, otherwise agreeing with the British view. Gibraltar has been on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states." which seems clearly pointy, POV, and verbose, making far fewer points than our present proposal in over half the amount of space. And I too would be prepared to include the UK's role in putting Gibraltar on the UN list if this would bring agreement by all editors, but I really don't see it as required for this overview. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a wording of mine:
Significant points:
Sadly we may need to proceed with a consensus that doesn't include Justin. We await further comment, but for the moment the proposal is to remove the present comments:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
And replace with:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.
Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
As you'll see, these are almost exactly the same length, and the second seems very clearly better on all criteria relevant to an encyclopedia. I propose to make a bold edit soon, unless anyone can come up with any relevant comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I suppose there is a possible ambiguity. What about
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Alternative texts would be welcome, of course, and if they're shorter and still fulfil all other criteria for a major issue in Gibraltar's current politics, that would be great. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pfainuk for constructive comments. I see your point and no, I wasn't trying to rewrite reality. What about this version?
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet again the mention of San Roque as the main destination (with current implications for at least one national narrative) of the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been removed. So has the main reason for the evacuation, namely fear after riotous invasion and atrocities committed under guarantees of safety. A passing allusion and a minor speculation replaces this. I appreciate that these facts do not sit well with the other national narrative, but they are multiply-referenced and have achieved a consensus.
I have therefore reverted from:
"During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave."
to
"On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain,assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."
Those coming new to this issue may wish to check the quotations currently available at
User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Those who wish to reprise the arguments so far may wish to trawl the archives. The specific issue here is a major theme from October 2009.
Justin, you suggest administrative involvement as the best course to solve this issue. I find it quite refreshing to agree with you. It's very nearly a year since I joined this discussion, responding to one of the requests for comments. I came in at Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16, and from well before then the archives record acrimonious and ultimately vain attempts to include you in the consensus. As I have previously argued, I do not feel that you have sufficient competence to contribute usefully to this page. We have had many months of filibustering and disruption, with good editors and wellmeaning mediators being driven away and those who stay the course wasting huge amounts of time. Short of decisive intervention, I see no reason to anticipate improvement. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I agree that at this point WP:AE would seem to be required in order to make any progress on your issues on this page. Do you want to make the request for help, or leave it for someone else? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A request regarding Wee Curry Monster has been filled by me here. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have full protected the article for 2 weeks. Sort out what sorts of information you agree to include and what presentation. Keep in mind that you should stick to the sources and cite reputable references. If sources conflict, reflect that in the text. If you need some help sorting out content issues, get some help. Other matters are being sorted out in the enforcement thread linked above. All editors of this page are notified that this article and related topics are subject to discretionary sanctions. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. Cool it down and sort it out. Vassyana ( talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
We have been working on Pfainuk's suggestion, which seemed to attain widespread support:
This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:
Attempts to put this into grammatical English, with one point added at Justin's insistence, have so far led us to:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a prov,ision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
This would replace the present text:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
We have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:
Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
This is clearly unsatisfactory, as can be seen from its mirror image from the other side of the dispute:
The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights.
Both prejudge the relevant claims.
We are not in a hurry, but this change has now received a lot of attention. It's about time to make the edit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Repeat the same position, thats always a good consensus building ploy.
Why mention Utrecht at all? A 300 year old treaty? The dispute is over the isthmus and territorial waters, thats pretty much all that needs mentioning. Everything else is details that go into the Dispute article. A few sentences at most is needed. Justin talk 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess that we have a consensus minus Justin. Unless this changes in the next day or so I plan to remove the present text:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
And replace it with:
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we're at or even particularly close to the point where leaving people out of the consensus-building process is appropriate. Justin is entitled to make points and should not be ignored just because it may be convenient for others. The fact that others disagree with Justin's points does not invalidate them.
Clearly, no editor has a final veto on content, but we should still be looking to include all editors in any given consensus.
My perspective on the point at hand is this:
I have an issue with "present de facto limits" because it doesn't mean anything, and can perfectly easily be substituted with words that do. Like, for example, "existing borders", the wording that I originally proposed and that no-one raised any objection to.
I think that, whereas verbosity is to be avoided, we ought to explain the very basics of the dispute in this section. The fact of the Spanish claim over areas that both sides agree are British territory (the whole self-determination vs. territorial integrity bit) is significant. I rather feel that if we are limiting ourselves to a single sentence, there is not a lot of point in bothering - since that point is already made rather more expansively in the lede. Hence my suggestion that it be a bit longer. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
When is a border not a border?
If there isn't a border, could somone tell me why there are border guards, passport and customs controls on the Spanish side of the ... er border? [19] [20] Note the second from a neutral third party source [21] Google brings up over 2,000,000 hits. Mmmm, to be honest WP:DUCK springs to mind, not calling it a border just seems, well, extraordinarily silly to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
To an outsider watching this page this is all a bit daft you are all going round in circles. The de facto border is the border it is not bias it is a fact of life all you need to say is the although the border is at wherever the Spanish claim that it is in the wrong place. You can all use some fancy phrases but I am afraid the border is physically where it is, all you need to mention is that Spain doesnt agree. MilborneOne ( talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
The other proposal was to use "borders" instead of "de facto limits", which is where this little fracas came from. I'd rather side-step the entire issue and provide a text that is accurate and that nobody will think is biased.
Finally, we also have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:
Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
I am fairly sure that this prejudges a number of issues, such as whether Gibraltar is part of Spain, and it omits the various rationales for the positions. However, it's shorter, we do have specific articles on the disputes, and the issues could be put right. Perhaps:
Spain requests the return of the entire territory, and believes that it has legal sovereignty over the isthmus south of La Linea and over all territorial waters and airspace.
If I could impose so far upon your good-will, I hope that a well-considered external choice at this point may put an end to years of wrangling. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I do apologise, you wouldn't be the first editor to be deterred by this talk page. The current text is:
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
Thanks in advance. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. | ” |
The current statement as a continuation of the history section appears to discuss a continuing dispute about territorial waters. Is it the contention that it should also summarise the current disputed situation not just the territorial waters dispute? (simple answers only)
MilborneOne (
talk)
12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
We already have a reasonable summary in the lead The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. so I think a more expanded version is needed but only as far as to set the scene. The detail can be in the child-articles, although it seems strange that the History of article stops in the 19th century! I will take the suggested long version, please note I am not bothered which of you suggested what far to confusing:
I think that the shorter texts are not really giving the reader a flavour of the recent history so I would suggest use a version of the above text but take notice of my comments. Note that longer explanations can be delegated to the child articles. Note that I have given an opinion I dont intend to debate my conclusions its up to the regulars on this page to take or ignore them. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that leaves us with something like (possible omissions in italics.):
“ | While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain continues to request that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is full, not restricted by the Treaty of Utrecht, otherwise agreeing with Britain. Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation". |
” |
All versions strike me as entirely acceptable. The first possible omission removes the Gibraltarian view, and I'd tend to keep it. The second removes a text on which Justin / Wee Monster has strong feelings, and if it would mean a consensus I'd accept it joyfully.
MilborneOne, many thanks for your help so far. I understand your intention to avoid further debate, but could I ask you to follow this edit, perhaps over the next week at most, until we have achieved a better version? As you may notice, we have got stuck. As an administrator you have relevant powers, and under the recent Arbcom decision on this page these are quite extensive enough to ensure that a sensible decision is in fact reached in that time.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this until Tuesday evening, but - unless there is any disagreement - will then make the edit. I propose to leave out the phrase added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now. However, if anybody wants to keep the phrase, for the sake of consensus, I'd personally be happy to do so. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
Territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting Gibraltar to the mainland is Spanish territory and denies Gibraltar's right to territorial waters and airspace (although legal advice to the Spanish Government indicates that such a denial is illegal under International Law).
The UK although willing to consider such a request, cites the principle of self-determination limited by certain provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar does not accept that the Treaty places any limits upon the right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the provisions of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories but Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain recognizes British sovereignty in Gibraltar, but requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to
self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Spain claims the southern half of the isthmus that links the Rock to the mainland, as well as the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that these were not ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht. Britain argues that its title to the southern part of the isthmus is based on continuous possession since 1815 and that international law supports its claim to the territorial waters and airspace. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting Gibraltar to the mainland is Spanish territory and denies Gibraltar's right to territorial waters and airspace.
The UK although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination limited by certain provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar does not accept that the Treaty places any limits upon the right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the provisions of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories but Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider these requests, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK accepts as still valid - though the Government of Gibraltar does not - a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
It takes the same space - six lines on my edit screen - as Justin / Wee Monster's suggestion.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Under a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht, on withdrawal Britain is obliged to offer the territory to the Crown of Spain first. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. | ” |
“ | The UK accepts as still valid a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, if Britain should withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Gibraltar does not accept this limit to its right to self-determination. | ” |
would be even better?
“ | The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. | ” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider these requests, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Do we have a consensus? It's only Monday and I still propose to leave the edit until tomorrow evening, unless of course anyone else does it first.
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Trying again (and I note with approval that this brings us back again to a close facsimile of Pfainuk's list):
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar under the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the isthmus between the Rock and La Linea and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Britain claims the isthmus area on the basis of long possession.
The UK, although willing to consider the request for sovereignty, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Again, do we have a consensus? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. Whilst recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
“ | Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity. While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and also the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar.
The UK, although willing to consider the request for sovereignty, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK continues to accept a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht which states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this provision limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the list; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Again, have we reached a consensus?
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said I have a preference for the less verbose text. A slightlu modified version:
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Both the UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Spain opposes this. |
” |
Slight tweaks here and there making it slimmer and less verbose. It doesn't need any qualifiers I believe if you state it like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both the UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed from the list; Spain opposes this. | ” |
is a little clearer for newcomers, because it starts with the fact and only then gives the arguments. So I'd suggest that order - doubtless a better version could be produced. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Close I have one more minor tweak to suggest but wouldn't oppose the above:
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed; Spain opposes this. | ” |
How about that? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized; both the UK and the Gibraltar Governments oppose this. | ” |
“ | Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that under the criteria of UN Resolution 1541, Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed. | ” |
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed; Spain opposes this. |
” |
With UN resolutions left for child articles and, if appropriate, references, this might be the best outcome? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Before anyone else comments, could I make the suggestion that the last text above is quite a lot better than the text in the article at present, and that it might be reasonable to remove
More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.
and substitute what we now have, in the Politics section, while leaving open the possibility of improving the new text? I agree that we are doing well here - thanks to all and especially to MilborneOne - and would hope to establish some of the progress actually made. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, with the support of the Government of Spain. Both UK and Gibraltar Governments argue that Gibraltar has been decolonised and should be removed. |
” |
“ | The Government of Spain argues that under the criteria of the Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964, and UN Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 Gibraltar has not been effectively decolonized. | ” |
I'm troubled by this intervention, deeply troubled to be honest given the positive nature of previous discussions. I'm compelled to say it struck a strongly discordant note with me but I will try to put that behind me to explain my opposition.
Spain's position is based on the principle of Territorial integrity claiming that the population is implanted and does not enjoy the right to self-determination under UN resolution 1514 and the UN Charter. As I will show below the resolutions mentioned have nothing to do with decolonisation, rather they're usually cited in regard to the Spanish sovereignty claim. The Spanish position on sovereignty is already covered in the article. So this would be giving prominence to the Spanish position twice. Hence, I don't find this sentence would contribute to a NPOV, rather it would detract from it.
If we look at the resolutions cited in the sentence quoted above, they're clearly not related to the NSG territory list, which is the topic of this paragraph. However, 5 is clearly relevant, 6 is also relevant but as a general principle only and could be suborned to the child article.
Focusing now on 1541, this defines the criteria for a non-self-governing territory, it doesn't favour one side or the other. Of itself its worthy of inclusion as one of the bed rock resolutions of decolonisation and for its relevance to the list we're discussing. I don't think the same can be argued for the other resolutions.
I would hope there is agreement that I've demonstrated the resolutions the above sentence calls up aren't relevant to the topic of this paragraph. Hence, the paragraph suggested following this intervention, removed the one resolution (1541) that is significantly relevant, results in a proposed text that is poorer for it and is diverging from wikipedia's mission of educating our readers on this topic.
I would like to see a minimalist approach but have been prepared to compromise and see more details included than is perhaps necessary for an overview IMHO. I have been prepared to compromise on the Spanish refusal to refer the matter to the ICJ, leaving it to another article. I've been prepared to compromise that the legal advice advice on the Spanish position indicates it is illegal under International Law, leaving it to another article. I can acknowledge those comments as perhaps too detailed for an overview. I don't think this applies to 1541 though. Hence, for me this is just a compromise too far - if we go for more verbose text, inevitably certain details simply have to be covered. I have one final suggestion.
“ | Under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 the UK and Gibraltar argue Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes removal arguing Gibraltar remains a Dependent territory. | ” |
I hope we can finally agree on a consensus text. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. | ” |
A point I would make is that there is a semantic difference - albeit a small one - between the two wordings.
Imalbornoz's wording states that Spain actively supports retaining Gibraltar, including in circumstances where Britain is not discussing the issue. The implication is that Spain would speak in support of inclusion even if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it: that Spain's support is a matter for itself, unrelated to Britain and Gibraltar's arguments for removal.
Curry Monster's wording states that Spain responds to Gibraltar and Britain's arguments. It does not imply anything about what Spain would do if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it, because it is written on the premise that they have.
To my mind, Imalbornoz's wording puts the cart before the horse. It goes into Spain's arguing for the status quo before suggesting that there might be disagreement about this. To my mind, this is the wrong way around. I also don't think that it is necessarily on the right side of the semantic difference: I would speculate (and I fully accept that it would be speculation) that Spain would not put the issue of removal or retention on the table if Britain and Gibraltar had not already done so. So, I think Curry Monster's wording is better. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. | ” |
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. WCM, would you like to start inserting citations, in hopeful anticipatation of genuine consensus? I hope that this process will be uncontroversial. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Maec
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).